§

Ex Parte 6,879,830 et al

95001192 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2015)
Ex Parte 6,879,830 et al

5 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,543 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. IPCom GmbH & Co. v. HTC Corp.

    861 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2016-1474 07-07-2017 IPCOM GMBH & CO., Appellant v. HTC CORPORATION, Appellee MitchellG. Stockwell, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by MichaelS. Pavento, DavidA. Reed. MichaelA. Oblon, Perkins Coie, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by TylerR. Bowen, JonathanM. James, Phoenix, AZ; DanL. Bagatell, Hanover, NH. Chen, Circuit Judge. Mitchell G. Stockwell , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant

  3. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,116 times   472 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  4. Section 144 - Decision on appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 144   Cited 84 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Stating that this court's mandate shall govern further proceedings before the Office

  5. Section 41.77 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.77   Cited 16 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in its decision, may affirm or reverse each decision of the examiner on all issues raised on each appealed claim, or remand the reexamination proceeding to the examiner for further consideration. The reversal of the examiner's determination not to make a rejection proposed by the third party requester constitutes a decision adverse to the patentability of the claims which are subject to that proposed rejection which will be set forth in the decision of the Patent